On 12/17/2011 7:37 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> (1) RDF Datasets. It consists of labelled graphs: (G, l), where l is an URI. (Some raised the possibility to use literals for 'l', but I think there is a consensus to use URI-s). There is no semantic relationship between 'G' and 'l', so something like (with an ad-hoc syntax here):
>
> ( {a:b c:d e:f}, mailto:ivan@w3.org }
>
> is a perfectly o.k. labelled graph in an RDF Dataset
>
> It seems that most (all?) quad stores fall into this category as well as the datasets in SPARQL
>
> (2) Named Graphs. It is a special RDF dataset, where the label 'l' is a (HTTP?) URI with an additional behaviour: if that URI is poked (GET-d) then it results in the serialization of a Graph whose parsing yields an equivalent graph to 'G'. It is the right/good framework for, say, Linked Data, etc.
>
It seems to me that we can make a lot of progress by exploring the
common ground between these as test cases:
e.g. do we allow the same URI twice.
I would have thought that most people would be unhappy with:
A)
{ ( {a:b c:d e:f}, mailto:ivan@w3.org ), ( {}, mailto:ivan@w3.org ) }
and also with
B)
{ ( {a:b c:d e:f}, http://example.org/consensus ), ( {}, http://example.org/consensus
) }
If that is the case, then we have moved forward (even if only by a little)
And so I would like to propose these two test cases for consideration at the telecon.
Proposal: the RDF 1.1 Recommendation will not recommend the use of either (A) or (B)
Once we have agreed on one test case, then we can try for a second - rather than the somewhat boring threads of conversation: running over the same old ground, and how we found the same old fears ...
Jeremy